Microsoft Announcer: We're here in Tuscaloosa, Alabama to see if we can convince Playstation 4 users to switch to the new XBox One.Microsoft Announcer to Random Person: We have NCAA 13 on the PS4 and XBox One side by side. If you can identify which system is the XBox One, we'll give you a free XBox One!Random Person: It's the one that locked up.Microsoft Announcer: Fark!Random Person: It's cool, keep it.

the_sidewinder:This is neither new (it's been in their EULAs for a while) nor is it likely enforceable

/PlayStaion Network also has this in it's terms//As does Steam

I agree, but I'm afraid you're wrong about not being enforceable. In Prima Paint Corp v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co, the Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration clause must be respected first, and in Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court held that the binding arbitration clauses authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act are sacrosanct.

Every company is including this on everything. We have to change this, and I'm not getting the XBox One for any number of other reasons (none of them financial, apart from the fact that the PS4 is cheaper and has more power), but singling out Microsoft on this is unfair.

captainktainer:I agree, but I'm afraid you're wrong about not being enforceable. In Prima Paint Corp v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co, the Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration clause must be respected first, and in Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court held that the binding arbitration clauses authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act are sacrosanct.

So would that indicate that should arbitration fail, a class action could be started? How big of a hurdle would that be?

the_sidewinder:captainktainer: I agree, but I'm afraid you're wrong about not being enforceable. In Prima Paint Corp v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co, the Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration clause must be respected first, and in Compucredit Corp. v. Greenwood, the Supreme Court held that the binding arbitration clauses authorized by the Federal Arbitration Act are sacrosanct.

So would that indicate that should arbitration fail, a class action could be started? How big of a hurdle would that be?

The current understanding is that because the arbitration is binding, you can't challenge the results unless there's evidence of gross negligence. It's sickening, and it's one of the many reasons neither Scalia nor Thomas should have been allowed on the Court - and why the Federal Arbitration Act should never have been approved. Allowing customers to sign away their rights in a boilerplate agreement is... beyond wrong.

DeArmondVI:thankfully Microsoft builds quality products, and this is just to protect them from vulture trial lawyers that collect 80 plus percent from payouts from frivolous suits

I was part of one class action lawsuit and won. It was against Bank of America for some dubious banking practice. For example, processing debits before deposits and slapping on lots of overdraft charges that resulted (they got me for a lot of money with that).

So my winnings from the lawsuit was .... a coupon good for discounted banking services at Bank of America.

captainktainer:The current understanding is that because the arbitration is binding, you can't challenge the results unless there's evidence of gross negligence. It's sickening, and it's one of the many reasons neither Scalia nor Thomas should have been allowed on the Court - and why the Federal Arbitration Act should never have been approved. Allowing customers to sign away their rights in a boilerplate agreement is... beyond wrong.

Now I'm curious as to how enforceable it is in other countries, because that sounds like being on the end of a paddle being used to navigate poop creek

That's not what the EULA says...it simply says you 'agree' to this' and sign away your rights..there's nothing in the MS thing that mentions arbitration and that shouldn't be brought up, as it's not part of the contract.

Many state have laws that say you can not sign away your rights for using a product. "Arbitration" are usually lawyer on lawyer things. One on One cases.

Most states have a law that says you can't wave away your rights from a EULA.

But the class would be a federal action, so the state law wouldn't be applicable, it would default to federal law, which says that you've got to honor the arbitration unless you can prove gross negligence in the arbitration itself.

optikeye:That's not what the EULA says...it simply says you 'agree' to this' and sign away your rights..there's nothing in the MS thing that mentions arbitration and that shouldn't be brought up, as it's not part of the contract.

optikeye:It's not going to matter. Most people except "HARD CORE" don't give a crap about evasive agreements or always on camera in the house...because their either don't know or don't care.

The Playstation is also $100 cheaper. Being considerably more expensive than its main rival, and with Nintendo still around to siphon off a lot of the more casual players, the Xbox needs hardcore gamers more than they need the Xbox. Furthermore, if you're a parent shopping for Christmas presents, are you going to spend an extra $100 for a system that has gotten this much bad press? A system that has a creepy mandatory camera that your dumbass kid will most certainly forget to turn toward the damn wall? Any one of the issues with the Xbone would maybe not doom it, but all at the same time? They're farked.

the_sidewinder:optikeye: That's not what the EULA says...it simply says you 'agree' to this' and sign away your rights..there's nothing in the MS thing that mentions arbitration and that shouldn't be brought up, as it's not part of the contract.

This EULA shiat needs to be fixed. We've had judges rule they aren't binding. We've had judges rule they are binding. We need it settled. And hopefully the ruling is "an EULA doesn't mean shiat legally, biatches."

the_sidewinder:OgreMagi: yes, I'd love to hear a judge say those exact words in a courtroom

You and me both. The terms in EULAs tend to be far too one sided

The last time I read an EULA for a game, I learned that the only guarantee was the disk worked. No, I don't mean the game on the disk. I mean that you could read the disk, but the contents of the disk were not guaranteed to do a damn thing, not even execute. Basically, if I could get a directory listing, their obligation for my $50 was met.

I once tried to return a game. The installer crashed on three different computers. The store refused to refund or exchange for a different game. They would only exchange it for the same game.